HANIF Versus THE STATE
Appellants Hanif, Jabbar and Ayub were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar for the offence under section 302/323/34, P.P.C., who vide judgment dated 19‑4‑1988, found them guilty for the offence under section 30.1(11)/34, P.P.C. and section 323, P.P.C. and sentenced them as follows:‑
Under section 304(11)/34, P.P.C.
Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default to suffer R.I. for six months.
To pay compensation of Rs.10,000 each or in default to suffer R.I. for six months.
The compensation, if recovered was to be paid to legal heirs of deceased Anwar Shah.
Under section 323, P.P.C.
Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500 or in default to suffer R.I. for three months.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellants were also extended benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed this appeal.
2. Complainant Muhammad Hakim, his two brothers Shah Wazir and Wazir Khan resided within the same enclosure in Sarhari Town. Deceased Anwar Shah who was Masar (husband of aunt) of complainant Muhammad Hakim also resided within the same compound, but in different house. The appellants resided close to the compound of complainant Muhammad Hakim. There was a drain (Nala) towards eastern side of the house of complainant Muhammad Hakim. On 5‑6‑1984, in the evening the appellants were digging a ditch by the side of drain when they were prevented from doing so by P.W. Wazir Khan. There was exchange of hot words and thereafter Wazir Khan returned to his house. On 6‑6‑1984 at about 7 a.m. P.W. Shah Wazir went to clean the drain when he was prevented from doing so by the appellants. P.Ws. Wazir Khan and Shah Wazir then left towards their shops. Deceased Anwar Shah then came out and proceeded towards the drain. There was exchange of hot words between deceased Anwar Shah and appellant Hanif. It is alleged that appellant Hanif who was armed with a stick caused him blow on his chin. The commotion attracted appellants Ayub and Jabbar. Complainant Muhammad Hakim also came out of his house. Appellants Ayub and Jabbar picked up wooden sticks from the heap and caused blows to deceased Anwar Shah. Complainant Muhammad Hakim intervened and he too was given blows by the same sticks. The blow caused by appellant Ayub on the head of Anwar Shah, however, proved fatal and he died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Wazir Khan and Shah Wazir. The appellants then decamped. Muhammad Hakim lodged F.I.R. at P.P. Sarhari. Ahmad Hassan A.S.I. recorded the F.I.R. in station diary at 7‑10 a.m. and then sent copy of it to P.S. Shahpur Chakar for incorporating it in 154, Cr.P.C. book. He then rushed to the Wardat and despatched the dead body of Anwar Shah to M.O. Shahpur Chakar for post‑mortem examination. On 7‑6‑1984, the Police Officer arrested all the three appellants and recovered the sticks from their houses. They were blood‑stained and were sealed in presence of Mashirs Muhammad Nawaz and Abdul Sattar. The blood‑stained clothes of all the three appellants were also secured and sealed on the spot. The blood‑stained articles were sent to Chemical Examiner, Karachi, who found them stained with human blood. After usual investigations the appellants were sent up for trial.
3. At the trial the prosecution has examined Muhammad Hakim (P.W.1), Dr. Abdul Ghaffar (P.W.2), Mehboob All, F.C. (P.W.3), Wazeer Khan (P.W.4), Shah Wazir (P.W.5), Muhammad haway (P.W.6), Abdul Sattar (P.W.7) and Ahmad Hasan A.S.I. (P.W.8).
4. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellants have disputed the case of the prosecution. They did not examine themselves on oath. They also did not lead any defence.
5. On the assessment of evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar convicted the appellants for the said offence.
6. I have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.I. Qarni, learned counsel for the State.
7. The fact that deceased Anwar Shah died an unnatural death is not open to any controversy. Besides the ocular testimony which I will discuss at the proper time, there is evidence of Dr. Abdul Ghaffar (P.W.2) who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Anwar Shah and found the following injuries on his person:‑
(1) One lacerated wound 1 e.m. x 1 c.m. x 2 c.m., with fracture of mandible on the left side of chin with bleeding.
(2) A contusion of 10 c.m. x 7 c.m. with swelling behind the right ear upto the back of neck.
(3) A swelling of 8 c.m. x 8 c.m. on the lateral surface of left upper arm.
8. On internal examination, the Medical Officer found the following damage:‑
(1) Fracture of skull at the posterior part.
(2) Fracture of 6th and 7th cervical vertebrae.
(3) Membrane ruptured and congested.
(4) Brain ruptured at the posterior part.
(5) Spinal cord ruptured at 6th and 7th vertebrae.
9. From external as well as internal examination of the dead body, the Medical Officer is of the opinion that deceased Anwar Shah died due to shock as a result of injuries on brain and spinal cord by means of a blunt weapon like Lathi
10. The same Medical Officer examined Muhammad Hakim and found nine injuries on his person which were simple in nature and appeared to have been caused by blunt weapon like Lathi. The appellants have also not challenged this petition.
11. The case of the prosecution solely hinges upon direct evidence consisting of Muhammad Hakim (P.W.1), Wazeer Khan (P.W.4) and Shah Wazir (P.W.5). Out of these witnesses Muhammad Hakim is an injured person. The presence of injuries on his person leaves no room of doubt to prove that the incident did take place between the parties and was witnessed by him. Likewise the presence of Wazeer Khan (P.W.4) and Shah Wazir (P.W.5) who are natural witnesses is also not open to suspicion. No doubt recovery of crime weapons and blood‑stained clothes at the instance of appellant& is not satisfactorily proved as both the Mashirs, namely Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.6) and Abdul Sattar (P.W.7), have turned hostile, but the ocular testimony consisting of Muhammad Hakim (P.W.1), Wazeer Khan (P.W.4) and Shah Wazir (P.W.5) is sufficient to hold that the appellants were responsible for causing injures to deceased Anwar Shah and complainant Muhammad Hakim by means of sticks. As a rule witnesses are weighed and not numbered. It was obviously for this reason that the learned counsel for the appellants did not question the finding of learned Sessions Judge about the incident and role played by each of the appellants. He has, however, questioned the sentence awarded to appellants.
12. Admittedly there was no previous hostility between the parties. The incident took place all of a sudden without any premeditation. While discussing point No.3, the learned Sessions Judge has also observed as follows:‑
"On the basis of case‑law and facts of this case it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that present accused had no intention of committing murder of deceased. It is proved from the evidence that present incident had taken place all of a sudden. There was no premeditation on the part of accused to commit murder. It is also established from evidence that accused had taken up Lathis from the Wardat and gave blows to deceased Anwar Shah and caused injuries to complainant.".
The question of common intention is a question of common inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case. As observed in Shahab Din v. The State P L D 1964 SC 177, when the accused commits murder on the spur of moment, such act is reckoned as his individual act and could not be described as joint act of all the other accused persons. The learned Sessions, Judge also took this view at page 14 of the judgment in the following words:‑
"I have, therefore, formed the opinion that this is a case where all of sudden on the spur of moment incident had taken place and, therefore, each of the accused is liable for the offence committed by him."
While recording conviction, the learned Sessions, Judge convicted all the appellants for the offence under section 304 (II), read with 34, P.P.C. which is contrary to his own finding.
14. The help of Exception 4 to section 300, P.P.C. can be invoked if, and only if death is caused ‑‑
(a) without premeditation,
(b) in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel,
(c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel, or unusual manner, and
(d) the fight must have been with the person killed.
15. According to the case of prosecution appellant Ayub was responsible for causing fatal blow to deceased Anwar Shah. The force with which the said blow was caused indicates that appellant Ayub knew that it was imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Appellant Ayub was, therefore, rightly convicted for the offence under section 304(11), P.P.C. The case reported as Devraj v. The State P L D 1980 Kar. 246 is distinguishable.
16. Injury No. 1 to deceased Anwar Shah, which is grievous in nature, is attributed to appellant Hanif. He is, therefore, convicted for the offence under section 325, P.P.C. Appellant Jabbar is responsible for causing injury No.3, to deceased Anwar Shah which is certified as simple. He is, therefore, convicted for the offence under section 323, P.P.C. All the three appellants are also convicted for the offence under section 323, P.P.C. for causing hurt to complainant Muhammad Hakim.
17. For the above reasons all the three appellants are sentenced as under:‑
(1) Ayub under section 304(11), P.P.C.
Sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 as compensation or in default to suffer R.I. for three months.
Under section 323. P.P.C.
Sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a sum of Rs.500 as compensation or in default to suffer R.I. for one month.
(2) Hanif under section 325. P.P.C.
Sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000 as compensation or in default to suffer R.I. for 1‑1/2 months.
Under section 323. P.P.C.
Sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a sum of Rs.500 as compensation or in default to suffer R.I. for one month.
(3) Jabbar under section 323. P.P.C.
Sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a sum of Rs.500 as compensation or in default to suffer R.I. for one month.
All the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The compensation of Rs.5,000 and Rs.2,000 if recovered from appellant Ayub and Hanif respectively be paid to legal heirs of deceased Anwar Shah. The rest of the compensation, if recovered from appellants be paid to complainant Muhammad Hakim. The appellants shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.
18. With the above modification in sentence the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
H.B.T./H‑137/K Order accordingly.